The Sun. — London, England, 1838-05-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1838. jstablishrnent and the very semblanc e of Church rights. Why was it that while the rights of the lay impr opriators were preserved i n manse and in effect, everything was abolished which could in any way connect the Church with property in the land ? The Noble Lora. bppo said that the Established Churches of England and irelane wer e. matte io intimately connected that one could not be 7 ;eseened ve-ithotet weakening the other—to which he (Mr. Litton) eseauld add, that you could not destroy one without ruining the othee. If he were in the habit of supporting Ministers upon all other quest : Anse-if he approved of:. 'their general policy—which he did not--he fill would feel himself corn. polled, as a Protestant geetleman, to oppose those resolutions, in consi deration of the destructive effect which they must have upon the Protestant Church in England as wed as in Ireland.—(Hear.) The two F.stablittenents were inseparably connected, and the existence one involved else existence of the ether.—(Hear.) Who he asked, bad called far those resolutions? Who had cheered Ministers on in proposing them ? Why, without meaning any personal offence, he might se.y that man who was at the head of the anti-tithe party, the man who had backed the resistance that had been exhibited throughout Ire land to the payment of tithes.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord had taunter i the clergy with valuing the peace of Ireland at 15 per cent, but he Mr. (Mr. Lltton) denied that the Irish clergy were grasping men, that they were men who would ex act the feel or nearly the full penalty of their bond even though ie might occasion the effusion of blood. This was a foul ca lumny on the Irish clergy who, on the contrary, were only distin. guished by their benevolent liberality—by the Christian charity which they extended to all classes of the poor around them, without regard to sect or party.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord at the end of his speech teemed to say that this contest ought to have taken place on the Church question itself, and not on that relating to Church leases. When it occurred was very immaterial. Possibly there might be a small majority In favour of the resolutions ; but, if so, of whom would that majority be made up? leihy, it would be made up, as the Noble Lord well knew, of men who had no right to interfere on such a subject, because they were the avowed enemies of the Church. If the Church Establish ment should fall by such merits, the Government would have to answer for it to the Protestant people of both countries ; but whatever might be the result of the present discussion all he hoped was that truth would ultimately prevail.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. LASCELLES said he was one of those who at the conclusion of the last Session of Parliament had looked forward with satisfactisn to the prospect of some amicable arrangement of this question. He should indeed be sorry that any vote which he was about to give in this preli minary stage should be supposed to preclude the most full and dialing sionate consideration of the entire subject. He bad a great disinclina tion that their party battles should be fought on such questions, and it was for this reason that he was the more ready to support the amend ment, and so far remove an obstacle to the amicable settlement of this question. In voting for the amendment, he did not see on what grounds it could be said that he was thereby voting for a re-enactment of the penal code, or for any harsh measures towards Ireland.---(Hear.) The question was, whether or no the appropriation principle should be maintained. To that principle he was decidedly opposed, and if he had been in the last Parliament he should have voted against it. He thought it at that time unadviseable mid objectionable, and he was of the same opinion still.—(Hear, hear.) It was his intention now to vote for the rescinding of that resoluemn, and he would give that vote in the hope of doing away with the difficulties that stood in the way of an amicable arrangement of the question. Whether or not it was possible for the Government to accede to the rescinding of that resolution was no con cern of his, and perhaps it was too much to expect that they would dome Mr. REDDINGTON contended that the Hon. and Learned Member for Coleraine, who had that evening addressed the House, had misrepre sented the resolutions of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Member, in the course of his speech, had stated that tithes were paid in the province of Ulster, but this was no more than was to be expected, for the people and the gentry of Ulster were for the most part Protestant, and he thought that the Protestant gentry ought to pay for the support of their own Clergy. It was stated by the Hon. Member that the Clergy of Ireland were opposed to the settlement ef the question proposed by the Noble Lord, bet certainly all the Protestant Clergy were not opposed to that settlement. A letter had lately been published by the Archdeacon of the diocese of Cloyne in which that Rev. Clergyman stated that the tell. Lions that had been presented against the resolutions of the Noble Lord did not express the general opinion of the Clergy of Ireland. He (Mr. Reddington) had hoped that this year some settlement of this ques tion would have taken place. He did not think that it ought to be treated as a party question. When, some years ago, a motion had been made for the repeal of the Union it was met by the Right Hon. Gentle. man below him with a resolution which recorded the promise of the British Parliament to do justice to Ireland. He thought, if the Hon. Baronet succeeded in carying his amendment and rescinding the reso lution of 1R:35, he ought to go farther, and move that the other resolu tion to which he adverted should also be rescinded. He might then send the Irish Members back to their constituents, to tell them that no justice was to be expected for Ireland from a British Parliament. With respect to Church property he (Mr Ileddington) had his opinion— whether tithes or revenue, it made no difference, was raised by tax for civil or religious exigences, when those exigencies ceased Parliament had a right to deal with either, and apply the amount to measures of public utility. There was scarcely a country in Europe in which the appropriation of Church property had cot already taken place, with the exc..ption of Spain. It had taken place in Russia, in Austria, and even since 1,15 a great quantity of ecclesiastical property heel been cones_ eared in the Papal dominions. In fact, he might say that this was the only country in Europe in which it was held that Church property was inviolalle. The time was when the Catholic Chu:ce vies as great end powerful in this country as the Protestant Church was now. Its Pre lates sat in Parliament amongst the nobles of the land, their equals in rank, and the participators of their power. But a discontented monarch change.l the state of things, and those whom that Church thought to be her firmest friends wr re the first to desert her in the hour of ariversity. This warning ought not to be lost at the rresent day. With respect to the resolution which it was proposed to rescind, it was well known that her Majesty's Ministers could not consent to that proposition. He strongly condemned any attempt to place ob,tacles in the way of settling the present question. He thought the measures proposed by the Go vernment were calcnla:ed to secure peace in Ireland, and to allay the animosities that prevailed respecting this question. Under these car. curt:stances he should give his earnest suppc,rt to the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr TOWNLEY was anxious foe the settlement of this question. Ile thought, however, that some party feeling was mixed up with the course taken on the present occasioe, and that the obioct of the amendment was to fix a stigma on the present Government, He did not see in the reso lutions to be proposed by the Noble Lord anything involving the prin. ciple of apprepriat' em , to which many lion. Gentlemen were epp,sed Ile thought the eettlement of the question might fairly rest with the present Goveirenent, ani that no difficulties ougi.t unnecessarhy to he thrown in t. ) :,eir way. He would vete ageinst the amendment. Mr. YeATNG add that it appeared to him at the present time most extraoreinary, that any Minister in this country should proprose the apptr,priation of any portion of the revenues of the Church, when :t AY? a known that the Church had net suffici nt for her own wants. Let them look to the state of the metropolis, where it was stated, on the au , lior;ty (we believe) of the report of a Committee, that a hundrwl new churches would be necessary to give sufficient religious acconnno. dation to the people. Let them look to the state of the manufacturing towns with resrect to religious accommodation. Let them look to Glasgow, where there was an admitted deficiency of the means of re ligious instruction. If there had been the means of having clergymen in sufficient numbers to ruppiy the want of religious instruction, the good effects would his found in the Improved bharacter and better morale of the people. With regard to the principle of appro pr;ation what ho meant to say was this—he did not mean to undervalue the blessings of education, but he thought that if any sin-lens could be found In the revenues of the Church for the purposes of education, that cducidion should be moral and religious, ac. cording to the doctrines of the Established Church.—(Hear.) Let them give the people what they would, they ini . ,ht depend upon it that such an education formed the only true means of national improve. meat. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland alnrrned that the re venues of th e Irish church were dispropoitioned to the spiritual wants of her fleck ; but the Noble Lard the Secretary for the Home Depart. mein observed that, altheugli the proportion of Protestants in Ireland was small as compared tx , .'.n the Borneo Catholics, yet that the revenues of the Church could not he coesidered disproportionrd. His (Mr. Yoireg's) opinion e.'as that the revenues were barely sufficient—that no serplue could 110 found—and that in talking cf it, gentlemen were merely delinßeig their Roman Catholic su:.poiters. He yielded to no man in for the interests of his Romer) Catholc felt:iv-countrymen, but he teFeved thet those interests would be best advanced by the adop tion of a line of policy marked out by the Right Hon. Baroriet the Member for Tamworth In 1834. lie would vote for rem inding the re solutions of I33s.—(Hear.) Mr. BENETT had given the present subject great and painful consi deration. He had endeavoured to make himself master of every detail, and he trusted the House would give him credit for coming to its dis cussion in perfect fairness of spirit and independence of mind—(He hear)—and yet, holding these opinions, he did not see any reason for support.ng the present motion. He thought the amendment was pro. posed for mere party purposes.—(" No, no," from the Conservative benches.) He had always been opposed to motions which had their origin In party feeling, and, whether the Government was Wh:g or Tory, he would always oppose such motions.—(Plear, hear.) He quite agreed with the Hon. Baronet (the Member for North Devonshire) in opposing the amopr , ..eion of the property of the Church to the purposes of the State; but what he contended was that the present motion was made not from any solicitude for the welfare of the Church, but merely as affording an oppxtunity fora trial of party strength.—(" Hear, hear," and expres sions of dissent from the Conservative benches.) He wished it to be understood that, in the rote he was about to give, he did not shrink from his former opinion; but lie had read the present resolutions, and he could not find in them a vestige of the appropriation principle.— (Hear, hear.) They were not very clear, he must admit—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—but with the assistance of the speeches which he had heard he had been able to make them out, and he was convinced that the appropriation clause was not to be found in them. As a friend of Ireland and the British empire, he considered it most important that this question should be settled at once and for ever. He thought the re solutions now before the House would lead to a settlement; but what did he perceive? A firebrand was now about to be thrown among them, by proposing to rescind an obsolete resolution, binding on no one, and which he for one had almost forgotten.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Lord gANDON could not sit silent under the imputation put for. ward by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The Hon. Mem ber said that this motion had bean brought forward merely as a trial of party strength, and that its purpose was to repeal an obsolete resolution. But how could a resolution be considered obsolete which was only three years old altogether—(Hear, hear)—and which, until this year, had formed the boast of Gentlemen on the other side of the House in ad dressing their constituents ? This was the first year in which the prin ciple was not avowed. A resolution which came from a party who pro. claimed the Church of England an abomination, and who were sworn to its destruction, was it surprising that they should look on it with jealousy ? What was the meaning of the resolution ? Why it merely kept up the shadow of appropriation. It was—" That it is the opinion of this Committee that the rent charges for Eccle siastical tithe should be appropriated by law to certain local charges now defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and to education, the surplus to form part of the Consolidated Fund." Here they saw still the desire to delude the people of Ireland into the idea that they were yet dealing with a surplus of ecclesiastical property. He could not look on this principle as being so obsolete as gentlemen on the other side would represent It. What gentleman on the other side would venture in Ireland boldly to avow that it had become obsolete ? (Hear, hear.) They were taunted with proposing this amendment idly —with killing Cock Robins ; but they were not Cock Robins that were attacked ; a great mass of property was concerned, and it was no light matter when it was assailed by a vast population for a Minister of the Crown to assert a right to appropriate that property to pur. poses different from those for which it was originally intended. It was no light matter either to make the House of Commons affirm that principle. Mr. WA RD thought that the subject befoae the House contained two distinct questions. One was the series of resolutions proposed by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Homo Department, a! at the other was the motion of the Hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon shire, calling on the House to rescind those resolutions which had been agreed to by Parliament in 193 i. With regard to the first of those re.. solutions he should say but little ; they were not now legitimately be fore the House. He was bound to say that they were much obscured by vagueness, as had been observed last night by the Noble Lord the Mem ): WS lamalbskfor North Lancashire, and as his Hon. Friend the Member for Wilt ' :.z. 7 _... ~ Idffie experienc e d, h av i ng lost two days i n an a tt em pt to unravel them. C . . - ,.., . laugh.) He (Ur. Ward) had thought the germ of the appro_ --:_t 5,? .. , `J.,A . , • clause was contained in the resolutions ; but his doubts "":11,_,, -, . -. spelled by the speeches of the Noble Member for Stroud je..4FJA . 6:.%,r: '''' ~ • - Abe Noble Secretary for Ireland, who avowed thst it was tl4 -4 ,_,v, 0 ,,, % pe: tention of the Government to propose a compromise on the 0;t:: /,.tx, f a declaration made at the close of last session by the Duke of =,--"---- I t • .., ington. He should belie his own feelings if he did not express re. "•••••:-.. • ; - c,N !ic s pet at such a compromise. He came now to the:proposition of the Hon. ea Baronet the Member for North Devon. That Hon. Baronet called 011 them to rescind the resolution of 1533, but what were his reasons ? He said he had a strong delight; but certainly personal feelings were not so important as to induce the House to make them grounds for rescinding their own resolutions. An Hon. Baronet who seconded the motion of last night stated that he considered these resolutions as prejudicial to the Church, and that he had opposed them from the first. He (Mr. Ward) congratulated the Hon. Baronet on the new light which had burst upon him ; but the Hon. Gentleman forgot that he (Mr. Ward) was the originator of this principle, and that if he had not found a seconder in the Hon. Member for the City of London his motion would have been seconded by the Hon. Baronet himself. The Hon. Baronet voted for the motion, and in his vindication for so doing wrote one of the most eloquent letters he (Mr. Ward) ever read to one of his constituents, who had condemned him for the vote he had given. He would now go back to the question of the re• solutions of 1835. Those resolutions arose out of the conviction of every man in the House that no measure of conciliation for Ireland would be effective unless it struck at the root of the evil which cre ated all the animosity, and was to be found in the Established Church of the country. To this anomaly this Church, which was called na tional, though it did not include one-seventh of the people of the country that the whole of its evils were traceable.—(Hear.) He was the humble organ which gave a voice to this general feeling when he embodied it in the resolution which he had the honot r to propose to the House. Without political connections—without any party in that House—he proposed the principle contained in that resolution; yet, such was the force of conviction which that principle carried with it, that from the moment it was proposed its truth was at once admitted by all disinterested parties, and had gone through and made part of the struggle up to the present moment.—(Hear, hear.) It was upon this ground that the Melbourne Cabinet was broken up, and that of' the Right Honourable Baronet opposite was formed, and it was upon this ground also that the resolutions were passed by which the Right Honourable Baronet was again dislodged.—(Hear, hear.) They were now called upon to rescind these resolution, but he would ask upon what grounds ? The Hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon had furnished no reason why they should be rescinded. He had not shown that the Irish Church was a national establishment, nor did he even assume it to be the Church of the nation.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) The Hon. Baronet spoke of the good will which he entertained towards Ireland, but his amendment was a strange proof of this. It was a proof that he was an apt pupil in the school of the Right Hon. Baronet to whose party he attached himself, and had learned how to use those very convenient words " all practical grievances."— (Hear, hear, hear.) This was exactly of a character with all the Conservative professions of regard for Ireland. These were the sort of snares which those Gentlemen resorted to with respect to Ireland. The question was necessarily one of finance on both sides. On one side it teas contended that the clergy were paid from a fund provided for the public benefit, and that the fund thus provided was at the disposal of the Parliament from year to year. That the instructton to be furnished by means of this fund must vary from time to time, and must be in ac. cordance with the assent of the people at large. For his own part he knew of no other basis. The Hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon described this property as the oldest known, and thus admitted thst it came to the present possessors by inheritance, and was transmitted by Act of Parliament to be administered for the use of the public by the direction of the Legislature. This had been done wisely with respect to Eng'and and Scotland, where the funds were appropriated for the support of the predominant creeds. The rule was reversed in Ireland, and the consequence was that instead of peace and good-aril', anarchy, hatred, and violence were the results. Let them give the Catholics an interest in the preservation of tithe pro perty, and approximate as nearly as possible to principle, or there would be no peace In Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman here quoted the au thority of Bishop Watson in support of his opinion, that civil govern ment had no necessary connection with any particular religion, nor was any particular form of the latter necessary for the protection of life, liberty, or property; that these were as well protected under the Pres byterian form in Scotland as under the Episcopal in France and Eng land; and that the true and proper basis of an Establishment was the popular creed.—(Hear, hear.) According to this principle the Church of Ireland was not a national Church, fur it was popular in nothing but the sense of its injustice.—(Hear, hear.) A great writer, whose poli tical opinions, were consonant with those entertained by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, had used the phrase "political lie." Mr. Carlile, in speaking of the old Government of France, called it an "unreal Government," hecauso it performed none of the functions for the exercise of which it professed to be established ; and that, as a " political lie," it necessarily ended in anarchy. He added that all unreal currencies must eventually come Into the bank of national intel ligence for payment, when the counterfeit must be eventually dis. covered." Let this be applied to Ireland, and see how the " poli tical lie" had operated. The counterfeit of a national Establishment had been discovered by the people, and the consequence was that it in duced them to endanger their lives and liberties in illegal opposition to it. The position we were in at present was this—either we must con time to concede to principle, or revert to the penal laws.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell) If the former course were adopted, it would ce tirely alienate from us a country which was one of the brightest jewels in the Crown of this empire. For his part he would not consent to re cede or rescind. He called upon the House to announce to the world its determination to discount enance the sectarian rancour which endeavoured to disguise and dignify itself by the name of Christ ianit y, and to proclaim to the world its resolution to double the importance of Great Britain henceforward, by rendering all the subjects of the realm happy and con tented.—(Ministerial cheers.) Lord TEIGNMOUTII denied that those who supported the motion of the Honourable Baronet the Member f.r Devonshire were influenced by factious motives The Noble Lord at the head if the Home Departnaent, in his speech of last night, had vindicated to the heart's core the principle of appropriation. Other Honourable Members also, and particularly the Gentleman who last addressed the House, de clared that what they wanted was appropriation, and that without it the question could never be selled.—(Hear, hear) The conclusion, then, to which he came was, that they were discussing, not the question ostensibly proposed by the Noble Lord (J. Russell) lest night, but that other obsolete question of appropriation, as it had been called on the opposite side of she House. This was the way in which the question was to be received, and to discuss it satisfactorily they should at once grapple with the manly course taken by the Hon. Member who had de. rig the E-tablishment in Ireland as a political lie.—(Cheers from Mr. O'Connell) The Hon. Gentleman who had used that phrase was not acquainted with the Irish people, either Protestant or Catholic. Had that Hon. Gentleman travelled as he (Lord Teirimouth) had done in that country—had he listened to those who wero competent to !rive him information—hail he exercised his own observation, and availed himsel of the intelligence of persons resident on the spot, he would re gard the Church of Ireland as a blessing to the country.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh.") He would support the resolution of the Hon Member for North Devon, as necessary to be carried before any finel adjustment of the tithe question could take place He :tad listened attentirely to the speech of the Noble Lord (J. Russell) last night, in hopes of collecting that information on the subject which, from his standing in tee House, it was his duty to have furnished; but he re gretted to say that he had been deeply disappointed in his expectations. It hell out nothing of promise, nothing of peace; there was in the whole course of it something to damp and depress the spirit of hope. The Noble Lord faltered as he went on, as if convinced that he was unable to produce any benefit to Ireland. They were told of wars, massacres, and bloodshed. It was of sight " Bella, horrida Et Tybrim mutt° spumantern sanguine cerno. Non Simoiis tibi, nec Xanthus, nec Dorica castra Defaerint." • (Hear, hear.) The appropriation clause was a millstone round the Noble Lord's neck.—(Hear, hear.) Why did lie not abandon the prin eiple which evidently shackled him as he went along, and which he evidently appeared to feel was an insuperable barrier to the adjustment of the question ?—(Hcar, hear.) The motion now before the House was one, and he did not deny it, which involved the fate of Ministers.— !Cheers and counter cheers.) It was for that reason he cordially sup. ported it, Mr. M. BELLEW was glad that the course was made public which would be pursued towards Ireland, if the Right Hon. Baronet opposi.e came into power. The Church was the hinge upon which turned all the questions relating to the administration of Ireland. Though what the Noble Lord had proposed was far shot t of what Ireland lad a to expect, yet still the Noble Lord should receive his cordial support, liecause what lie did propose to give would net only be a benefit in itself, but would show an intention on the part of Govern. :rent to defer in some degree to the opinions of the Irish public. There was a most curious manner of comparing the number of Ca tholics and Protestants in Ireland adopted by the other side; they looked upon this question with reference to the question before the House. When the subject of Municipal Reform was before them, the number of Catholics in Ireland formed a grOund of complaint ; but when they came to speak of the tithe question, or any measure con. nected with the Irish Church, they immediately changed their tone, and instead of the immense numbers of Catholics we heard of their great scarcity as compared with the Protestant population. The appropria tion clause was a new proposition to any one acquainted with the his.. tory of Europe. In Franco, in Holland, and in Germany, there was an appropriation clause in full force. The education of the people was provided for by the State, and they did not dream of a dominant reli. gion supported by the majority of the people who did not partake of its tenets. In Ireland social intercourse had been almost destroyed from the baneful efFects of the tithe system: The landlord whose brother, or whose son held a living could not forgive the tenant a vote which had a tendency to injure or deprecate that property ;—(Hear, hear)—and there were too many cases well known to the House, where the most unrelenting and heartless persecution had been resorted to for the purpose of gratifying the landlords' re. vengeful feelings against the tenants for having given such votes. This state of things was not, he trusted, to continue. The proprietor of Church property could not at present entertain good feelings towards those who were in daily opposition to his claims, and the effects of this social warfare were too evident in every part of Ireland. Such scenes could not be sufficiently regretted ; such scenes were becoming more frequent every day; they were caused by the operation of the pre- ' sent anomalous tithe system, and would undoubtedly continue until it should be abolished. He trusted this was the last Session of Parliament which would assemble without a satisfactory adjustment of this vexatious and agitating question. Mr. SHAW said that it was the opinion of those at his side of the House that the proper course to adopt was, by rescinding the resolutions as moved last night, to go into a full discussion of the question free and unshackled by any resolutions affirmative of appropriation, or of any thing which might be so construed. This certainly would be a more fitting frame for the mind of the Legislature, than if they went into a discussion of its merits, with a pledge of their opinions already recorded before the Houee.—(Hear, and loud cheering.) The Noble Lord, when moving his resolutions last night, said, or at least he understood him so to infer by his speech, that no measure for the adjustment of tithes in Ireland would be final and satisfactory without some power at least similar in its nature to the appropriation clause. The Noble Lord did not go so far as to say that those resolutions would tend to a final and satisfactory adjustment. Why, then, should Hon. Members at this side of the House support the proposition of the Noble Lord if, even on his own showing, it would not be satisfactory ? Where was the inducement to the friends of the Church to acquiesce in the arrangement if it would not be final, and that they might be called on next year for another change ? They lost all inducement to sup port it. The friends of the Church were offered no interest in agreeing to the Noble Lord's resolutions.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Shaw) would not contend that the Noble Lord should undertake that the Bill would be final and satisfactory. Perhaps that might be too much to ask. But he would ask this—that the Noble Lord, as representative of her Majesty's Ministry, should not come down to that House and ask a pledge to re corded upon the journals of that House pledging themselves before hand that the clergy and the people would not be satisfied with the projected settlement. Yet this would be no more nor less than the effect of his resolutions.—(Hear, hear) The Noble Lord must be perfectly aware that there was a great and powerful minority at that side of the House, and he must he also aware that the great bond of union between them was inviolability of Church property. He was always an advocate for an equitable adjustment of Church pro perty : he was an advocate for an abolition of pluralities, and a dis tribution of Church property more equally; but this distribution should be amongst its own members in order to be just. With respect to the change of tithe into rent charge, he believed there could be scarcely a second opinion as to its propriety or its good effects. He had always been of opinion that it was a change calculated to producemuch good ; but he thought the reduction was entirely too great. He should, perhaps, not say another word upon this subject, but here he could not allow to pass an observation of the Noble Lord's, directed against the Irish Pro testant Clergy, and upon their part he (Mr. Shaw) felt bound to say it was most uncalled for. In any country there was no other in stance of a body of men bearing up against such continued privations and unmerited sufferings with an equal degree of forbearance, There would be a difficulty in finding any body of men so deserving of all their warmest sympathy for patience under suffering, or for every virtue, than the Irish Clergy, who were viewed, it would appear, by the Noble Lord in such a light, that, act as they might, they could not please him.—(Hear, hear.) Unmoved when the war of opposition had been brought to their domestic hearths—when their families were in many cases starving—when poverty was assailing them in everyshape —and it was thought by the Noble Lord that even those sufferings, su per-induced by no misconduct of theirs, did not entitle them to the poor privilege of complaint, for when they had in the enjoyment of that me lancholy privilege of suffering, appealed to the Government, the Noble Lord's sympathy was conveyed in a joke. He thought they were so used to grieve they had found— . such a charm in melancholy, They would not if they could be gay." With respect to the third resolution, perhaps the Noble Lard was of opinion that it was only putting in force what the law had already done. This was a great mistake of the Noble Lords, and one which could be too soon corrected. He held in his had a table of the Church revenues of Ireland; its amount was 408,148/. This was not all the revenue of the parochial clergy; the parochial clergy received -186,7841, and the residue was made up by what was paid to the Bishops, &c. All this he would beg to remind Hon. Gentlemen was not the amount of tithes, for at present there was no tithe in Ire land—it was the amount of the composition entered into in lieu of tithe throughout the country generally. By that sum there was payable by the landlords 257,0831., and in addition to this they had undertaken the payment of a large portion of the residue during the last three years that is undertaken to pay it upon the part of the tenantry as it had been permitted by the Act of 3 and 4 William IV., cap. 100, which permitted the head landlord to undertake the payment for one year and the minor landlords for six months, as well as he (Mr. Shaw) recollected. Fer this they had been allowed a per centage by the Clergy, and so general had this become that there now remained but 240,000 which were not un dertaken, so that the question so far was very fast settling itself. He had always been most desirous of a settlement between the landlords and the Clergy, and of this he was sure that it would be far more easy to bring , the landlords and the Clergy to an understanding than the Clergy and the occupiers. He (Mr. Shaw) was of opinion that the reduc tion peoposed was entirely too great for the advantage conferred, and he was most anxious not to allow so large a reduction. However, it had this advantage, that between them the question was only one of amount. With respect to the resolution which proposed the investment of the purchase money, he should say that in purchasing tithe property they would not beable to realise 56 per cent. upon what the Clergyman receives, and therefore he would ask, why lose so much in an unneces sary proceeding ? He wished the change to be As generally acknow. edged and as widely spread as the change of duties, and he objected to any concealment of it. Protestant landlords were the fittest trustees of it. They had the deepest interest, and while they took care that the soil did not suffer in too large an amount, they might be looked upon as the best protectors of the Church. If bad men should again obtain power—if times again became disturbed, as before they had been—and that those who were found with sufficiently evil intentions f to confiscate the Church property entirely, where could they find men I better capable or more willing to oppose them than the Protestant land. • lords of Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) Those would be found the best pro tectors of the Church, and in their hands he would like to seethe tithe charge. He thought the redemption of the tithes a most useless and I expensive proceeding. He had an objection to the sth resolution. He I did not impugn it as an appropriation clause, but he objected to it, Mae ! much as it subjected the property of the clergy to an annual investiga. tion, unfair in its nature, unfair in its principle, and inconvenient and annoying in its operation. With respect to the 6th resolution, if it was not a juggle it was worse. If the Government wished for a bona fide purchase, why did they not go to the Consolidated Fund? The truth was that resolution contained the form, if not the prin. cip'e of the appropriation clause, and, as such, it had received the approbation of Mr. O'Connell. The Noble Lord charged his (Mr. Shaw's) side of the House with unfair dealing in the the matter at issue—and said that they had taken advantage of him, and endeavoured to entrap him. Now he (Mr. Shaw) distinctly de nied the truth of that charge and he hoped, by a reference to a few . . _ . facts, not only to convince the House, but the Noble Lord himself, that it was totally unfounded. The Noble Lord stated that he had been induced to bring forward the resolutions of which he had given no tice, because he had been led to believe that the other side of the House concurred with the view taken by the Duke of Wellington and others of the Conservative party, that the question of appropriation should not then be mooted. Now he (Mr. Shaw) believed that he could satisfy the Noble Lord that do such concurrence ever existed except in his own imagination. In the matter of the Irish Poor Law question he ap pealed to the Nob!e Lord whether it was not entertained in the fairest and best spirit by that side of the House, although it had not been de manded by th2rs ? The next of the Noble Lord's measures was the Irish Corporation Bill. The Noble Lord took credit to himself for keep ing that Bill back. Now, what are the facts ? On the first dsy of the present Session of Parliament, the sth of Nevem. ber last, the Noble Nord gave notice of a motion on the sutject of Corporations in Ireland for that day month, the sth of December.—(Hear.) On that day he accordingly introduced his measure, and yet the Noble Lord would wish to have inferred that he was misled by them. The Noble Lord moved the second reading of the Corporation Bill; but he said, in doing so, that if there was to be any npposition to it he would feel disposed to postpone it. The Noble Lord the fixed the 23d of March as the day on which the discussion was to be taken. On the 23d of March, however, the Noble Lord gave a pom pous notice, that he would put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, respecting the course he proposed pursuing in the matter. The question he accordingly put, and the Right Lion. Baronet answered the question by asking another. The charge o: the Noble Lord was, that the appropriation clause waa altogether kept cut Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to aisswer in the negative. Mr. .SHAW had always understood the gravamen of the Noble Lord's Mary against them to be, that they had keot out of sight alto gether the question respecting the appropriation clause until within the last four nights. Well, on the Noble Lord's question being put, his (frr, Shaw's) Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth replied, that it was unusual for the leader of the Gorernment to ask a question of the leader of the Opposition as to the course he meant to pursue, hut he could give no answer to the Noble Lord's question on Irish Mu. nicipal Corporations until the Noble Lord stated what he meant to do with the appropriation clause in the measure to be introduced respect ing Irish Tithes.—(Cheers.) Was that keeping the Noble Lord in the dark ? Was that taking an advantage of him ? Did that look like en trapping him ? ('ould he support his charge after it ? Had he, in short, any ground whatever to stand on ? But what did the Noble Lord do then ? Ile then commenced that system of mystification which had been acted on ever since. The Noble Lord had said that is future, when his (Mr. Shaves) side of the House made professions, he would not believe them. The Noble Lord would do as he thought best in that respect, and they, no doubt, would try to console themselves as well as they could with the cons, ionsness of their innocence of any such charge. An Hon. Member opposite had charged his (Mr. Shaw's) Hon. Friend the Member for North Devon with haring introduced this subject as a history of Cock Robin, and made it his hobby; but if strict justice hail been done, he should hare stated that it was the Noble Lerd he supported who rode it as a hobby.—(Loud cheers.) And if any one killed Co. k Robin, It was certainly the Noble Lord upon the other side of the House, who, in the debate of last night, described himself as infit+zpuer.—(Laughter.) lie it was that unhorsed the Noble Lord his coleagne, and not his Hon. Friend. The position of the Noble Lord in regard to the Irish Church was this—he was willing to W wound . but afraid to strike —(Hear, hear.) But e nou g h of those things. hat he (Mr. Shaw) had to say was this, if the Noble Lord opposite (J. Russell) would consent to put the question of appropriation altogether out of the way he for one was quite willing to enter at once into any reasonable arrangement which could effect a satisfactory settlement of the Irish tithe question. Nay, more, he would undertake to do the same in regard to the Irish corporations. Ile did not mean to commit himself.—(Hear, and laughter from the Ministerial Benches, and from Mr. O'Connell.) He thanked the Hon. and Learned Member for his sheet—but he was not, like him, in the habit of speak ing according to the occasion, nor did he wish to make a state. ment iu or out of the House which he would desire here after to retract—(Cheers from the opposite side of the House.) Mr. O'CONNELL spoke to the following effect :—I can i3fely pro. raise t he House that if they extend me their patience I will not trespass long upon their attention. I rise after the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, but not by reason of anything he has said—post hone, and non propter eum.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentle man is singularly liberal in h s advances. Ile offers the Noble Lord, that if the Noble Lord will consent to do nothing he will help hint (Great laughter.) These are the terms of the proffered holy alliance. These are the terms on which the Noble Lord may ensure the assistance of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman.—(Renewed laughter.) As to the rest of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, it was divided into two unequal parts, both of which, however, had equally little to do with the subject before us.—(Hear, hear.) The first part referred to resole. tions which are not under discussion at the present time; the second contained the history of what was said and done on one side of the House, and what was said and done on the other side of the House, on an occasion some time gone by, having no bearing on the present discussion, and just as interesting to us as the history of Cock Robin, which has been much spoken of to-nlght ; or, if the Noble Member for Marylebone prefer the comparison, as the Life and Adventures of Tom Murphy.—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord near me has asked the House to go into Committee, in order to consider the details of this subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman might just as well have favoured us with his speech in Committee, but, as it is, I trust he will give us the benefit of the instalment.--(A laugh.) The question, however, before us is whether we shall rescind the resole. tions of 1635 or not; this is, I say, the only question before us, appa. rently ; but what is the real question ? The real question is, and it is vain for shallow hypocrisy to deny it, the real question is, how shall Ire_ land be governed.—(Hear, hear, and loud ci ies of " Oh, oh.") Yes, dis guise it as you will, put it as you will under cover of your love for Pro.. testantism and your abhorrence of popery, this is the question ; this is the question which is now under discussion, and which hes been under discussion for the last 700 years.—(Great laughter, and cries of "Oh, oh.") Yes, you may affect to laugh and sneer, I make no blunder about the matter. I know as well as you that Pro testantism was not your war-cry 700 years ago, as it is now ; but I say that for 700 years back the question has been how dominant England shall treat subject and oppressed Ireland.—(oh, oh.) This is the only question, and this is the real question between you, the Tories, and the Whigs, at least as far as professions go, for most of you profess in other matters nearly the same principles as the Whigs : the only dif. question Terence i isin e carrying theseshall Ireland principles be eainntuopLerff:eernfLedrß go v er ne d —s hallusth e the e realgov governed by a section !—( Tremendous shouts, and cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Oh, I thank you for that cheer.—(Renewed shouts.) Yes, shout as you will; I care not for the shouts of an inso lentnattihoen.—He(Thn. In Ge t n li t e lem O a p n p ,s os v i e ti i o e n e benches an completelyd despicable drowneddomi for several moments, and we could not hear a word he said till the sentences,) votc Why Speaker had succeeded in restoring partial ender.) Oh, Sir t. 'tie (continued . that which he has told you? the Honourable and Learned Gentleman), let them shout; s yell—(lmmense uproar—it speaks the base spirit of party. — (Several sentences were again lost in the . uproar.) y ou may sneer at seven millions.—(The should not t na h e e uproar ifs e y n o B u g: f ir : n l e : r d e a . r t otawnnledss say yeasketvoerthal you —(Hear, hear, hear," and loud cries of " Order, order,") The English people are aware of what your conduct—they k now you have done amongst them of late in order that you may command us here. after. You have carried bribery f u rther than it ever was carried before; you have gained your majority by it. Never was th ere more extensive bribery than that which y ou have practised.—(Crles of " Order " rind " Oh, oh," from Opposition Members.) Yes, you hav e practised it and the highest amongst you have shrunk Nora investigation,—(Loud cheering, and cries of" Question.") If the i Hon. Gentlema n w h o cr ies question wishes to what it is, I tell him it is as to th e mode of govern ing Ireland—(Hear, hear) — for it is impossible to thi n k that such a paltry attempt as that which is included in the motion of the Hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon can be the Mode or th e mean s of inducing us to weeder from that which is the real question be tween us.—(Hear, hear.) Why, let me read to you what is th e ques tion : whether you will rescin d this resolution i s the nominal question ; but in reality the question is, by what mode you mean to govern Ire land. Before I read the resolution let me remind you that not only the people of England, and the people of Scotland, and the people of Ireland, but the inhabitants of Europe aro attending to the debates of this House, andl the questions which you have reserved for your deter mination. From the camp of Don Carlos to the throne of Nicholas they are attending to your proceedings; the world is listening to you ; and do you think that they will not look upon you with contempt if they find that you permit paltry party spirit to enter into your delibe rations and bearing upon your decisions, by which you will distinguish one nation from the other, and make those whose powers ought be united, consolidated, and identified with each other, a divided, and a disunited people ? But what is your r e sol ution that you want to rescind ? This is the resolution : " That any surplus revenue of the present Church Establishment in Ireland not required for the spiritual care of its members —." T he scope and object of the resolution, then, are these :—to provide for the spiritual care of the members of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) You say, then, that the money is not enough. This is what is said by the Honourable Mem ber for Donegal, who has highly praised the Establi s hme n t ; b u t , th e n, how i s this difficulty met as to the money being applied to political objects ? It is declared that the surplus revenue " shall be applied to the moral and religious education of all classes of the people, with out distinction of religious persuasion." Now there is the resolution that is so terrific. That it is which is to come between us and justice—that it is which is to stop us—that it is which is so monstrous, which is so frightful, that the reverend clergymen of the Church of Ireland declare that they are afraid the funds of the Church will be exhausted, that they never will be sufficient for all which the wants of the Protestants of Ireland may require. They are for the spiritual wants of the Protes. tants being supplied, and they declare that when they are supplied the surplus should not be employed in any other way. How, not employed in instruction—not employed it: giving a moral and religious educa tion to the people ? Remember it is for the moral and religious edu cation of the peol le. Oh, you tell us it is not right to employ it in that manner. Why, how many of you are there who go about amongst us, how many of your Missionaries are there amongst us, who tell us that it is the benefit of education and the advantages of intelligence that are wanting to us to induce us to become Protestants ? If you believe yourselves, then why not act upon the resolution ? You tell the world we want education, and you show the world you do not believe what you lay. You prove to the world that you do not rely upon the Bible, but upon the strength of your party.—(Hear. hear, hear.) You prove to the world that the only riches of the Church that you value are those which you can bring with you in Judas's scrip.—(Cheers.) If we are to be benefitted by education—if we are to be made Pro. testants by education, then why not allow us to be educated ?—(Hear.) If you believe that Protestantism is the religion that will be preferred by educated men, then why have such a horror of the surplus funds of the Church being devoted to that education which you say is the best method for making men Protestants ?—(Hear, hear.) But then you may tell us that though Protestantism may increase as education is ac quired, yet it may happen that giving the surplus to education may not allow hereafter enough for the spiritual wants of Protestantism. What in such a case does the resolution provide ? It says, " providing for the resumption of such surplus, or of any such part of it as may be re. quired by an increase in the number of the members of the Established Church."—(Cheers.) And yet that is the resolution which you want to rescind. That is the resolution which has so frightened the Parsons of Devonshire that they have put forward their Member to move for its being expunged from the Journals of this House. This, then, is the awful, this the dreadful resolution! Oh! how I rejoice that in the struggle in which my country is engaged, and in which you are com bined against her, that you stand before the world the parties to such an absurd, such a contemptible, and such an unjust resistance to her rights —that you, despite of the scorns and defiance of the sneers of man kind, should stand thus before civilised Europe? That is the pro position you oppose, and that proposition goes no further than this— that the surplus is to be applied to the purposes of education, which edu cation you yourselves say will make men Protestants; and then if, in consequence of education, more Protestant Clergymen are to be re quired, then the very resolution you want to rescind allows the resump tion of the surplus for all the purposes required by an increased number of Protestants. You object to that.—(Hear, hear.) The shout you gave awhile ago was, indeed, a fitting motion to the Hon. Baronet—not his speech; for never in all my life did I hear anything more harmless than that was.—(Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen have given him credit for purity of intentions—many Hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, on both sides of the House, have spoken of the purity of his motives. Really, Sir, when there is a rule of the House that no one Member is to impute bad motives to another, no matter how bad his acts may be, Ido think it ought not to be suffered to impute good motives to any man who has made a bad motion with impunity.—(Laughter.) And yet that is the position of the Hon. Baronet. He has brought forward an unjust, an unfair, and an absurd motion, and then we are told of his good inten tions.—(Hear.) Now, if any man were to tell us that the Honourable Baronet was actuated by a desire of notoriety, that he was instigated by anity, and that he was carried by the blast of Conservatism into a region which he never otherwise would have reached, oh ! then the delicate and fastidious would be shocked, and it would be said you are not at liberty to impute bad motives nor to accuse another of having bad intentions. The Hon. Baronet has made a bad motion with good inten tions; but did the Hon. Baronet never hear of the Dutch proverb, which declares that a very bad place "is paved with good intentions?" —(Hear, hear.) I impute no motives to the Hon. Baronet, and as far as Parliamentary language will allowme to go, I say, that I " laugh to scorn" any one who can say that a man can come forward in this House and propose to expunge the resolution which I have now read, and that in doing so he can be animated with good intentions.—(Hear, hear.) But after him came the Hon. Baronet the Member for Warwick, who told us that it was with delight he seized the opportunity of seconding the motion for expunging these resolutions. If that delighted hint, I must say that it is very easy to please him, and a small matter gratifies him.—(Laughter.) He said he would not consent to " give to the enemies of the Church the property of the friends of the Church." Vs ill he tell me whose property it is ? Will he also answer me another question, and tell me whose property it was ?—(Hear, hear.) I have heard of one Gallant Officer on the opposite benches, the Hon. Member for Donegal, who endowed a church in Ireland. Ido not at all doubt it, for I can easily credit the liberality and piety of the Hon and Gallant Member in this respect ; but then, I ask, with that single ex esption, whose property was that of the Church ? Was it not the pro perty of the Roman Catholics, and was it not given fur the purpose of having prayers for the dead, for the celebration of masses, for the invo cation of saints, and for the maintenance of such other " superstitious and damnable doctrines ?"—(Hear, and laughter.) Yes, you thought the doctrine was bad ; but then, you said, "the money is good,"- -and, accordingly, you protested against the doctrine, whilst you took care anxiously to clasp the money to your hearts. And, having done this, you now refuse to do justice, under the paltry pretence of religion. It is a paltry and a hollow hypocrisy.—(Hear, hear.) There is a kind of morbid humanity abroad ; it is to be found amongst men who affect philanthropy—who are tenderly alive to all the evils which may be en dured by those who are not of an agreeable colour, and who are to be found ' in distant regions; they arc men who overflow with the milk of human kindness for black men and women, but who can with patience, with equanimity, and even with approbation, look on, and see all the in juries you inflict upon Irishmen, and all the injustice you do to Ireland. I with the Irish were negroes, and then we should have an advocate. — ( Hear, and laughter.) This erratic humanity wanders beyond the ocean, and visits the hot islands of the West Indies, and thus having dis charged the duties of kindliness there, it returns, burning and deso lating, to treat with indignity, and to trample upon as enemies, the people of Ireland. The Honourable Baronet has used the words, " he would not allow the property of friends to be given to enemies." Is it to pay the priesthood of the people that the property of the Church is sought to be applied ? No ; for we, true to our principles, and finding the Catholic religion to prosper unconnected with the State, would not allow it to be contaminated by mammon, and will only have it sus tained as it has flourished, upon the voluntary contributions of its own members.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Kilmarnock, who is not now in his place, but I suppose he is in the House, was kind enough to speak upon that side of the House also, and he, with a dex terity which was more to be admired than his candour, read half a sentence of mine, and took particular care to omit the other half.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I alluded to the resolutions, and ; observed that as Protestantism diminished, the contributions to the ; purposes of the State would be increased, and I alio showed that th e expenditurf for the purposes of Protestantism would be enlarged with the increase of Protestantism. Was it fair, then, in this House to quote the first part of the sentence and to omit the other part ? (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Pontefract is not here, and I am, therefore, willing to p ass b y th e p hili pp i c he was pleased to make on her , Majesty's Minister s . H e to ld us, i ndeed, of " a cat lapping milk up. " — (Laughter.) But I shall not follow him; I sha'l only give hint one line of poetry for his " cat-lapping :" " The cat may mew, the dog will have his day." (Laughter.) But new the real point to be decided is this—whether you are disposed to make the union permanent or not. My Honourable Friend the Hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda, told you that which you would not believe me if I told you, but can you disbelieve him ? He told you how deeply the people of Ireland feel as to the con test which is now going on. We may say we are eight millions. I say, you may take the whole of the Protestants of Ireland, and it would be hard indeed to take them from the people of Ireland, for I am at this moment surrounded by Protestant friends who are ardent in the cause of Ireland ; but if I give you all, you will have a million and a half, in eliding the Presbyterians, who do not love tithes. Taking then man for man, woman for woman, and child for child, and there is a balance in our favour of five millions. You have a million and a half, we have six millions and a half; deduct the million and a half, and then you find a clear balance of five millions. It is " the total of the whole."—(Loud laughter, ill which Mr. Hume, who was sitting near to Mr. O'Connell, was observed to join.) For nay own part, I never have disguised my opinion. I always have said that a nation of eight millions was too numerous, if they had common sense, to permit themselves to be treated as a pro vince. We were not treated as a province for near 700 years, though we were misgoverned ; and for the last twenty-five years it was rising in iiresperity unexampled in the annals of any nation. This, too, was happening at the time when you were running a course of profligacy. You were then sending your troops to America ; you attempted to trample upon their liberties ; but thanks to their patriotism and their Spirit, they met you in arms, they defeated you, and they established their independence—(A Member on the opposition bench here cried " Question.") It is a question of which you will hear more than one-e.— (Cheers.) But then, you having fomented a rebellion in Ireland, you availed yourselves of the diminished strength of the people, and the distracted state of parties, and with 150,000 troops in the country you carried the union. I am ready to consent that that union may continue.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," " Oh, oh.") You may sneer at that declaration, and say that you do not value my consent—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh M.—but then you sneered at America, and you got your answer.—(Cheers.) Let the Hon. Baronet tell the people of Ireland he does not value their consents, but I tell him that if the Conservative faction, or the Conservative party, trample without hope of redress upon the people of Ireland, he may find that, though victory may not be inscribed upon the banners of the Irish, they never will consent to lie down degraded and willing slaves. The Union should be one in which there ought to be no distinction between Yorkshire and Carlow—between Waterford and Cumberland; there ought to be an identity of laws, an identity of institutions, and an identity of liberties. It may be said that I push the argument too far, when I make use of the word identity; for the Church of the State in England is the Church of the majority. I find that in England there are twelve thousand places of worship connected with the Established Church, and that the Dissenters have eight thousand meeting-louses. The religion, then, of the majority of the people of England is that pro fessed by the Church of the State. In Scotland the religion of the people is recognised as the national religion. In Ireland you have trampled upon the religion, and you perpetrated your tyranny in the worst (elm, and in the most odious shape, until at length the people of Ireland spoke to you in a voice too loud not to be heard, and too unani mous to be misunderstood, and you found yourselves unable to con tinue them in their former state of degradation. In Scotland the people turned out upon the mountain side—they met you in battle, and, having defeated you, you were obliged to yield in Scotland. In despite of you, there the Church of the State was the Church of the peo ple. What, then, should be the effect of the union ? That the Church of the people must be the Church of the &ate. There is no principle -- I mean •o political principle—to prevent it ; but there is a principle upon our part which must for ever prevent such an oc currence taking place in Ireland. It is this—that we are thoroughly convinced that it would be the surest mode of decatholicising Ire land. We believe that tainting our Church with tithes, and giving temporalities to it, would degrade it in the affections of the people of Ireland. Offers have been made before to the clergy of Ireland, and they have been rejected—the offer of any con nection with the State will ever be rejected. But, then, treating Ireland as you do upon this very question, you tell them that there is no union with England.—(Hear, hear.) These resolutions do not go far enough. I admit it.—(Hear, hear.) But then I am ready to ac cede to these resolutions. My disposition is for an amicable settle ment. The Protestant landlords are now beginning to feel the weight of tithes equally with the Catholics. From the county of Cork we perceive vast numbers of petitions proceeding from all classes of poli ticians. The Consetvative landlords are becoming heartily sick of the payment of tithes. They may call it " rent," but the tenant un. derstands it as an additional burden to his rent. If the tenant appeal to the agent for distraining for rent before the man is prepared to pay it, the agent tells him that the clergyman of the parish is pressing the landlord for his tithes, and he is obliged to collect his rent sooner than otherwise it should be done, for the purpose of paying the clergyman's demand; and thus it is that though you may call it rent, the people feel it to be tithes.—(Hear.) The Protestant landlords, and even many of the Protestant clergymen, are calling for a settlement of the question. Even ' within the last week the letter of Archdeacon Hoare has been published, In which he calls upon his brother clergymen to accept the admirable terms offered by the Queen's Government.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Will not these terms be allowed to be accepted ? It is true that here Protestan tism is mixed up with politics, and the interests of religion are apt to be overlooked in the advantages of party, Piety is combined with the love of place, and the tranquillity of Ireland neglected for the hope of the enjoyment of office. The Protestant gentry as well as the people of Ireland call for conciliation now. Let, then, Ireland be now tranqui lized; and, as far as an humble individual can do, I have set the exam pie already, and I am ready to follow it up.—(Hear, dear, and cries of " oh.") I have paid my tithes: I did not pay them for five VA's; I had four persons attacking me at once. They have now been paid, beeeuse I wished to set the example of beingprepared for an amicable settlement. But then the Honourable Baronet will not allow that ; his " good in tentions" will prevent it, and induce him to rescind a resolution to which common sense cannot object, but to which political Protestantism can of fer some opposition. We want equality with you, and you will not per mit us to have it. You genesis a Reform Bill—it was a stingy and a des picable Reform Bill. Why ? Because you would not trust us—your politi cal Protestantism again met us. We ought to have had the same franchises which you enjoy. We were entitled to them by the union. Why not give us an equality of civil rights ? Political Protestan tism could not permit us to have them. England has municipal reform; Scotland has municipal reform; but Ireland has not obtained corporation reform. Why, your political Protestantism again ?—(Hear, hear.) How widely do you preach Protestantim in Ireland! You make it the pretext for depriving us of every species of equality with your selves, and then, having rendered it odious, you rend forth your mis sionaries to preach it amongst the people whom you have made its victims. It is despotism aided by hypocrisy, and yet you proclaim an union, a legislative union, between subjects of the same realm. You may do so, but you will be laughed at and scorned. I am making an experiment amongst you, and frankly and fairly I tell you I am convinced you will not do us justice. What prosper tis there of it, when I find that owing to the enormous bribery practised by you amongst the freemen, you have got such numbers into the Commons, that the Lords think nothing of a majority of this House ?—(Cheers from Members on the opposition benches.) It is of no avail for her Ma jesty's Ministers to bring in useful measures ; we hear them taunted with the little they have done. Why, you won't let them do what they would. First you taunt them with not doing more, and then, when the propose to proceed, you place yourselves in opposition to them, and them that there is another place.---(Loud cheers.) We know that there is another place.—(Roars of laughter.) And we know it needs only to be said that it is intended to extend political ad vantages to the people of Ireland to ensure a veto being pronounced against the proposition. This is your triumph : yours is the power to insult ; yours is the authority to oppress; you glorify yourselves in your haughty station ; and while you pretend you wish us justice, you exert all the powers you possess to prevent the identification of our rights and liberties with yours. I did not intend to occupy the House half so long. The question is simply this—are you disposed to do jus tice to Ireland ? You make us an offer ; you say you are disposed to go into the consideration of the resolutions with good temper, but first the appropriation principle must be struck out. The meaning of that is plain: " Walk under the yoke, good gentlemen.—(lmmense cheering.) Make the best of your way to the common place of execu tion—walk under it—bow your heads to it—and then, forsooth, when you have rendered yourselves as contemptible as degradation can snake you, when you have satisfied us of your unmanliness and worthlessness, then we will consider you fit objects of conciliation, and entitled to par ticipate with us in the enjoyment of rational liberty."—(Long continued cheering.) That is precisely what the Noble Lord the Member fer North Lancashire promised us ; that is the way in which the Noble Lord gave us to understand we might excite his good temper, and insure to ourselves his countenance and all that is genial and win ning about it.—(A laugh.) The Hon. and Learned Recorder also, pro testing that lie never made speeches as a judicial partisan, except at the monthly meetings of those liberal and enlightened men, the Corpora_ tion of Dublin, told us what mighty things we might expect at his hands if we would but submit to this degradation.—(Cheers.) Do the Hon. Gentlemen opposite taunt her Majesty's Government with not having carried this resolution with effect ? Surely it is we who ought to complain of that. We are the parties who are entitled to ask why it has been allowed to slumber ? No attempt, however, has been made to act upon it; and now the Hon. Gentlemen opposite deem even the sound of it too much for our Irish ears. Its being allowed to re main upon the books is too great a submission to the wishes and feelings of the people of Ireland; and, consequently, one Hon. Ba ronet moves and another Hon. Baronet seconds, both with the best intentions, a motion to obliterate it from the Parliamentary records. Heaven preserve us from your English Baronets l—(A laugh.) They are the oddest cattle I. ever heard of. I find them voting for the principle of appropriation at one time, and calling for its condemna tion at another. The Hon. Baronet who seconded this motion has given a most unpleasant, I will call it a most awful, turn to the debate; it was in his speech that for the first time the distinctive appellations of reli gion were ever given to any parties in this House. He said, " The Whigs in ltlee had driven away a Catholic king, and he in 1838 would assist in driving a Catholic Opposition from the Senate." If this was the way in which the Hon. Baronet pleases to talk of the Catholic party in this House, I beg to tell him that we have to the full as good a right to be here as he has.—[Sir E. Wilmot said, as we understood, that he had spo ken of Catholic dominion.] The newspaper reports correspond with the note I took at the time, but I am content to believe that Catholic domi nion was the phrase vied by the Hon. Baronet. There is no great diffe rence between the two. What do we demand—what do we wish ? We wish this resolution to remain on your books, and then the Hon. Baronet talks of Catholic dominion ; for I must take him to have meant dominion, if he says so. Now, let me ask, is not this the first time the distinction of religious parties has been introduced into this House ? I assure the Honourable Baronet that I am as little disposed to Protestant as lie Is to Catholic dominion ; and I beg to tell him more, that if Catholic dominion diminished his rights as a Protestant, there is not a man in existence who would more zealously and actively exert himself to de stroy it than I would. At the titan the lion. Baronet made that dis tinction, the Hon. Member for Melton, who is a Protestant ; the Honourable Member for Armagh, who has belonged to the Presbyterian church for twenty_five years ; and another Hon. Member, who is a dis senter of one of the persuasions, sat around me ; and we four, each dif fering from the other in our religious opinions, joined in one expression of abhorrence at such a distinction being introduced amongst us Shall we have polemical discussions in this House ? I beg the Hon Baronet to understand that I am quite ready to meet him for any such encounter, but not here. lam as prepared and as disposed as he can be to give rea sons for the hope that is in me; but we sit here as the representatives of the people, and, as a representative of the Irish people, I call on you to remember that your union is one of parchment ; it may be one of cob web, and it may be one of adamant ; but the latter it will not be unless you do]ustice to Ireland.—(Cheering.) Sir It. PEEL said, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has exceeded the limits which he prescribed for himself at the commencement of his speech, I am the last man that should be disposed to regret the super fluity, because if I wautest a speech to justify the course of my Hon. Friend—if I wanted a speech to show that it is desirable we should know the principle on which her Majesty's Government mean to proceed—it would be the speech which we have heard from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.—(Cheers.) The lion. and Learned Gentlemen says that we propose to rescind a certain resolution which he read. The effect of that resolution was to perpetuate a certain surplus of the Irish Church pro perty to the education of all classes of her Majesty's subjects, without reference to their religious denomination. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says, that because we propose to rescind that resolution, we must intend to govern Ireland through the medium of hardships and coercion. Then I ask the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, what dues he think of those who practically abandon the resolution ?—(Op position cheers.) If it be so great a crime to explain to the people of Ireland and to the people of England what are your real intentions—if it be so great a crime to ask you to efface from the records of Parliament the principle which would apply a surplus of Church property I. edu cation not connected with the Protestant faith—let me ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman how he justifies it to himself to give his assent to resolutions which we are told do not involve the principle ? (Cheers.) Does the Hon. and Learned Gentleman maintain that those resolutions do involve the principle ?—(Hear, hear.) Do they involve the principle or do they not ? This is a inal settlement—this, we are told, is to be a satisfactory settlement. Then, I ask, do the resolutions which we are asked to assent to, involve the principle of the reso lutions of 1835 or not If not, how does the Honourable and Learned Gentleman reconcile it to himself to give them his sup port ? If they do, how does lie reconcile his construction of them with the construction put on them by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, and, as it appears, also by the Noble Lord the Se cretary of State for the Home Department ?—(Cheers.) In the latter case, which authority are we to believe? And if a doubt exists be tween the Government and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who on this subject has such immense influence and authority—(Cheers)—if we show this, do we not furnish a conclusive reason why we should hare all vagueness and ambiguity cleared up, that we may come to a perfect un derstanding of the principle on which we are proceeding! I would ask further, can Hon. Gentlemen be surprised at the anxiety and doubt that pervade the Protestant minds in Ireland when they receive the declarations that are made ? The Hon. Gentleman says he gives his assent to the resolutions on this ground. He thinks, then, follow ing up his own principles, that you ought to have the religion of the majority established in Ireland. As you have the religion of the ma jority in England established, and as you have the religion of the ma jority in Scotland established, so, says the Hon. Gentleman according to his principles, you ought to have in Ireland the religion of the majority established.—(Cheers.) And it is worthy of observation, that while the Honourable Gentleman professes peace, and intimates that, after refusing the payment of tithes for five years, he is now setting a different example—while he refers us to the precepts of Christianity, and professes everything that is mild and conciliatory, he always reminds us as lie has done this night that the Scotch went upon the hill-side with their broad-sword—(Opposition cheers and counter cheers from the Ministerial benches)—and that in Scotland the religion is that of the majority. But, says the Hon. Gentleman, " though I consider this doctrine sound and conclusive, yet I will not push it to its practical results"—and this is the security we have. " I don't ask you to establish the religion of the majority in Ireland, because we utterly repudiate any connection with the State. We are so satisfied that a participation in any portion of the Church property would so dese crate our faith as to deprive it of its influence, that we cannot consent under the circumstances to receive a portion of that property, and we, therefore, choose not to push to their legitimate conclusions our argu ments with regard to the principles." The Honourable Gentleman is looking with some anxiety for the quotation which he sees I am about to make. lam not surprised at it when I see what security there is in the abstinence of the Irish people. I have said he rests his own forbear. ance 041 the ground that he repudiates any participation in Churcii pro perty ; but it was to him that the people of Iretand gave this assurance, as a condition of the establishment of tranquillity in that country. " Would you tranquillise Ireland, fellow up this plan." Now, what plan ? Of course you would suppose a plan in utter repudiation of any connection with or participation in Church property. Quite the re vers. " Follow up this plan ; give the glebes to the value of 3001 per annum as the pay of the Clergy of the great and overwhelming majority of the people of that country." Gentlemen of property and influence may refuse to pay tithes for five years; but there is one species of pro perty that is staple, that is exempt from spoliation, that a refusal to pay tithes cannot affect, via., the glebes in the possession of the Church —(Cheers.) Leave the Church nominally in possession of the tithes which may be withheld by conspiracy and the advice of subtle men ; but if you wish to establish tranquillity follow up this plan; leav e the tthes with the Protestant Church, but take the glebes for the Catholic. The Honourable Gentleman appealed to the Act of Union ; he says he holds by the Act of Union, and wishes to give that national compact a fair trial. He concludes that the Act of Union establishes the equa ' lily of civil rights—Good. Does it nothing more ? Was it not one condition of the Act of Union that the Protestant Church in Ireland should be maintained unimpaired. And hear, and loud was not that a fundamental condition !—(Rear, I ask, then, is it fair of the Hon. Gentleman to' declare his adherence to the Act of Union in this respect that favours his views, but to deny its validity with regard to matters with w hi c h h is views do not accord? In order to form a correct judgment of the nature of the proposition made by my Hon. Friend, and in order to judge of the justice of those accusations which have been p re f erred against him and others by the Noble Lord, it is necessary for me to take a short review of what has taken place with respect to this question. There are many Hon. Gen tlemen from whose minds the facts may have been obliterated by the public events that have since transpired, and there are also many who not having been in the last Parliament, may not have watched the pro gress of the question so as to be thoroughly acquainted with it. I con sider it necessary, therefore, that I should preface my answer to the Noble Lord by shortly reverting to what has transpired on this subject. I came into office at tho latter end of the year 1834, and I was at that time sincerely desirous of effecting a settlement of this tithe question. Such was my anxiety, that I exposed myself to a charge of plagiarism by adopting the principles of the measures of the former Government. The charge was, that I had taken in the Bill brought in by his Majesty's preceding Government. I, howe ver, brought in that measure which proposed a deduction from the incomes of the Clergy to the amount of twenty five per cent. ; the reduction of the tithe composition to a rent-charge. We professed a desire to correct any abuse in the Protestant Church, to reduce those incomes that were excessive, and to require duties from those who did not perform any. Was I allowed to proceed with that measure, the principle and details of wleich were taken from the Bill of the Honourable Gentleman opposite ? No, was met by a pre liminary objection ; I was told that I should not proceed practically with the consideration of the measure, because it was neceseary to pass a resolution embodying in it principles which were considered indis. pcnsable td the settlement of the tithe question. I told the Noble is, rd , that he would have the opportunity of his tri um p h over me eq ually by , p r i n ging in a practical measure, but I deprecated the introduction of a principle in a resolution which would have a tendency to bind Parliamen heraftee, I said," bring in your own measure, adopt your own principle, if it is a good etlee!ind capable of practical development, and if your re sons prevail, your success shall be equally decisive ofmy fate." Not co tent with that, however, the principle was pressed which declared that there were a surplus it s e,seild be applied to purposes of education; farie this was superadded, that at no time could any tory which did not embody that principle. Such a res.. was li t e; fectly unnecessary. I foretold the consequences of its ad;Vtion. I you that your triumph as public men would be of short die•ati °n • - laugh ) I cid not mean official triumph; it is possible for men" to be 14 sitions office and not to be triumphant.--(Great cheering from the Oppr' sestleinent be satis No man is perhaps better entitled to lay down that maxim than m.V'el I asked you to avoid establishing a principle which, for all time to CO must preclude a compromise. I begged you to avoid a single vote u riding so great a question. I warned you against a course which peered to have the effect, though it had not really, of passing by th House of Lords. You persevered, though you knew that the sue cess of a practical measure Must be equally decisive of MY fate ; you persevered, and you said, " We will la y down f° the guidance of public men and fringe Parliaments this Fr i elide, and they shall not approach the tithe question sue , less they adopt it." The Honourable Gentlemen opposite seeded. I said then, as I say now, that I never would b e a p arty tO thartY, principle. I will not consent to the alienation of the Cherc h proper the I Wok from purpose tier thy ecclesiastical, and rather than do comae which every honourable man would take under simil ar' eircure b a t stances—l relinquished office, The Hon. Gentlemen opposite I..'r nn g n forward their own measure in 1835. When they did so, I move . amendment. We moved that the Bill be separated into two, for . "" purpose of manifesting our adherence, in opposition to our own principle:- • We moved that the Bill be separated into two, for the purpose of estab lishing a rent-charge in lieu of Tithe composition, and effecting the ne cessary reforms in the Church, being of opinion that the diverting an , ' surplus to purposes of education would be properly the subject of _a a separate Bill. How were we met when we made this proposition ? Ale-. w now 1 want to know who were the real parties who obstruc ted the se ttl ment of this question.—(Loud cheers.) As I said before, when we at .: tempted to bring this question to a satisfactory conclusion by pi:sting 1 .... on that footing upon which it could be brought under practical gosh iteration, we were met by this resolution, upon which the cornl7ef! alliance was formed.—(Hear, hear, cheers, an d laughter.) upon this resolution we went out.--(Hear, hear.) And when Ice , proposed the separation of the two measures, how were see n ot ? Why, the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Chancellor of th,e chequer, who is now taking notes—(A laugh)—thus replied, are. c ` .. served that we attempted to lay down no abstract principle of our OF ~ we did not meet the proposition of the Noble Lord by the princ i p le th 87, Church property should stand devoted to spiritual purposes on l y ; ms merely said let us have a separate Bill. How were we met? D a° Chancellor of the Exchequer said—" The Honourable Baronet calls ore. the House to sever the two propositions, either for no purpose at all, o' v for the purpose of passing that portion of the Bill relating to the sou-• • cession of the million and the settlement of the tithe question, and throwing out the other part of the measure relating to appropriati on. Would it not, then, have been better for the Honourable Baronet tO have candidly called on the House to rescind its former resolution? The more straightforward course would have been for the House tc', have been called on to rescind its former resolution; and if t -31? Honourable Gentleman thinks he can vote for this resolut ion w ith out rescinding the former vote, let him recollect the cheese wit,, which the announcement was received ; that it was in tended' negative one part of this Bill and to carry the other part.—(l at', hear.) lam prepared to argue the case when we go into the COOt. mittee after having negatived this resolution, but I will not allow srl3a, was a Parliamentary minority on a former occasion to convert itself ja i ' , a majority by a little sleight of hand and legerdemain dexterity, sue as moving a resolution which is apparently one thing, though most questionably it means another." Thus, when we propose the particul-r. course that would have avoided the difficulty, we are told that we 31.C.' not candid and straightforward. And when we now come with a P rc.- 4 , ' position to rescind the resolution, when we adopt the very euggesllcti, that was offered to us, we are told that we may be very candid r straightforward, but we are making you pass under a disgracefu l and uf ‘: honourable yoke, and your flesh and blood revolt against it.--(LA4.;i cheers.) Thus passed 1835. In 1836 the question was again broug" forward. My Noble Friend (Lord Francis Egerton) asked for leav e . t bring in a Bill embodying your own principles, and at the sa me asked the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to postpone his Bill then fore the House. " No," said the Noble Lord, " I will not postl wne measure." My Noble Friend then moved his Bill as an amendment,osdno. again it was rejected. The Noble Land's Bill was sent to the of Lords, that is the Bill passed by the Noble Lord in 1836. rent, House of Lords passed the Bill reducing the composition to a charge by 25 per cent., making reforms in the Church, but not . e": 0 ". bodying the principle of appropriation. I asked the Noble Ile take the amendments intoconsideration. The Noble Lord refused to them into consideration, because they did not adopt t he PrinetP ineeays& the resolution, and the Noble Lord said that if this House entered a consideration of the Bill as sent by the House of Lords , it wo uld r s i , recantation of their former resolution, and thus this Bill was 216° , y ine s ; The year 1836, therefore, passed with an ineffectual at tempt to t. this question to a settlement; 1837 came, and now I part of the Noble Lord's speech in which he made use of this lang . fc g r ,„ that attempts had been made to deceive him by the declarations P•tn; ward by us, and that hereafter he would consider such declaratotorso4 nothing more than tricks and stratagems.—(Locel cheers.) 1 , refus e ‘,' beg leave to say that whilst I have been in opposition, I " a have he'w to have any secret negotiation.—(Continued cheering.) I ..,,,,earile no communications, and this not from any personal disresree' s etursai those who differ from me, but because I think shakes the confidence of a party in those in whom they place cor,mitia.,..., approachwils.ta: —(Cheers from the Ministerial benches, re.echoed frons the OPL pe settl ' Whatever has passed upon this or upon any other occasion b in the face of day, and in this House, and therefore in the 01 °i ,,, e ss remptory terms, as peremptory as is consistent with the cooties,' liamentary usage, I deny that the Noble Lord has been deco !use,. (Cheers.) I will first refer to what passed at the c lose of the las in t sion of Parliament with respect to the Irish Tithe Bil l . That B " ill ~., " ""c h, no progress in this llouse, on account of circumstan ces for which yernment were not responsible, the lamented death of his late Mirie s ,", A debate arose upon the Municipal Corporation Bill for Ireland. question between us is this—Has the Noble Lord ever had the slighst Cr • t ground for believing that I had relaxed in my opposition to the princiS''' I of the resolution of 1835 ? Has any act or declaration of mine ever el ts titled the Noble Lord to believe that I would be a party to any settlemere ! t of the Irish tithe question, which should involve directly or indirectls i the principle of appropriation ?—(Cheers.) I peremptorily deny (Cheers.) The Noble Lord made this declaration—" That no false racy, no false pride, or improper fear of reproach, would induce hirn et stinately to adhere to anything that heretofore had passed." Do I tt y , the Noble Lord with this declaration ? Do I turn round and sal , an d forced me out of office upon this question, and now you apoloeiee, recant your former declaration ?" : for my part I declare, the'tle, that resolution of 1835 was fatal to my Government, n ot a word of t' hi , should the Noble Lord have heard from me on this subject ; and if Noble Lord will now adopt that course, if he will consent to aban . 7, the resolution—(lronical cheers from the Ministerial benches)---iii",„, Noble Lord will proceed to the consideration of t he question Wwhi4„, view to a final and satisfactory adjustment, that is the only way the question can now be satisfactorily settled. Do not let it re is oL u. suspended as at present. Do not let us aggravate the e vil b y discu without any specific object. Do not let us vote up on a resol which, whether it be adopted or abandoned, will he the cause gendering bitterness in Ireland. The Noble Lord and his colleag, know that it is impossible to leave the question in its present a:, This declaration I made last year upon the subject. Th is deelat_asse I made in the same Session in which my Noble Friend dec lared the , was desirous to see those great questions which divided th e Ilenw'reedl loish matters brought to a sati s f a ctory settlement, and th at te , participate in all measures th a t would have that effect, but h t never should consent to a settlement of Irish tithes upon the prineiPosaf the appropriation of Church property to secular uses. This was q,sr• was said by my Hon. Friend, who, I suppose, is also included in ` proach of the Noble Lord—this was what he said at a later Petl t; , - t , namely, on the 9th of June. And what course did we take t;l:csss Bill of last year ? We supported the Noble Lord's Bill on 111 ... 01' 6 ' reading; and so little desirous were we of offering a mere facti°`_s 3 ilis r. sion to the Bill, that when Mr. Sharman Crawfurd opposed o 'l 4 wen the second reading, my Honourable Friend and myself di Bts Government against the at motion. Although we thought that L" contained a principle th was objectionable, what course did Wo' . : We said, "There will be an opportunity in Committee to oppose eon(' jectionable parts ; do not, therefore, let us refuse our assen t to the 6e on ( ' reading." We consented to the second reading of the Bill, there were many, at least some, on the other side of the House, W rye ei posed it. The Hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W . 14 ?,•t dire opposed it on the ground that it did not go far enough, and ths'• c oos not give enough of Church property, but we declined to c o.opers t tu esi.e those who sought to obstruct the measure of Government. Wll3,t'vert. said my Noble Friend ? What was the language that was calcms u • • deceive, and which entitled the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) troa that he had been placed in a false position in consequen ce of twee.l and stratagems? This was the language of my Noble FAen d yr ia •s Stanley) : " However anxious I may be to see this measure ea if • as the basis and ground-work of a great national settlemen t of the )1 s' portant questions which agitate the public mind, I should not dighaSti,.., my bounden duty if I did not frankly declare that no corisidelyeta• whatever, with reference to this or any other Bill—no asserted P.osa., I bility of a settlement—no profession of acquiescence in its Pr n t l itt' will ever induce me to give my consent to the taxatioe of the ei C 'rsa this uniust and illegal purpose." Now what was the principle (,' , Bill of 1837 ? It laid a tax of ten per cent. for the eclucalicnt%iries classes of all religious denominations ; and against th at Pri° rat' which virtually contained the appropriation principle, I objected Wash when was the language used which had deceived the Noble Lord ? „see in the course of this Session it was used ? 1 professed my de'irtehe . the question settled, but I said without the abandonment ""'i . propriation principle no settlement could be satisfacto r y' . ye stletn et ,' S. regret the obstacles that have arisen in the way of thein of this question ; I lament those divisions that ;1, d, sincerely, and more so than if they existed in i-j)g r n atq n _,' - ' cause in the former they are more dangerous ; but this is a ' h .. e chur''_,L. • Gorr of principle, involving the permanent security of the stew and I repeat that I cannot consent to a settlement which any portion of Church property to secular uses --(Loud cheerL)pelid(if. what I now contend for is, that I never led the Noble Lord tO that I would consent to a settlement upon any other conclitinutigaftar Noble Lord said that he had postponed the Irish Municip al heh' S ' the Irish Tithe Bill at a request of mine, and that by th at Mean' plins-if, been placed in a mere unfavourable position.—(Cheers fromtbeasitions terial benches.) I deny the fart.—(Loud cheers from the 01 1 to o , - The Noble Lord gave a formal notice that he would ask a quel ctatioi me, and he did ask that question late in March, but so little e%P e bje ctO had the Noble Lord that I would make a compromise on th e % to p frt the Municipal Corporations Bill, or any other Bill, that the (Pi e pion s by him was simply this—namely, if I would let him know , if Pure st Friend would make a motion as he had done last year, whelnbdeweetl•C tended to divide the Municipal Corporation Bill into two; a D ot 32 ` .1 he intended to submit to the House a proposal for abolishing' 1.6 reforming Municipal Corporations.—(Hear, hear, and checords:o to Noble Lord was so con pletely in ignorance of the C so PS zd meant to pursue oa this or any other measure, e acel . ' of 0 10. as he could collect from our public declarations. The propos ent'' therefore, was not made from me, but it originated in nevi tinusu-ositicne lion being put by the leader of a Government to After the Noble Lord's formal notice, I said that I could ii°%_ g o gut s ' explanation as to my future course; but I begged leave to tisi ne . o' o tion of the Noble Lord respecting Irish tithes, and in al : l a ' afil at question I made use of this explanation, This was on th est March last, before the recess. I made use of this explanatro i n_ h or, found entered on the journals of Parliament this resolution wb._c_re remained in force.—(An Hon. Member on ths Tr easury Bench 600. 66 CLIO' terrupted the Right Honourable Baronet by call in g out lio its question.") He (Sir It. Peel) must really su b m it that the P°'; her which he had been placed by the Noble Lord's gustation was r e , _ ne te unusual one, and he was now merely l a ying the foundation !ends, (sleep, hear.) on, H theo ae d thisn f s o w . e n rto which io reso h l i u s owntnon the journals eplyw would m ainly f in e lY ord' l. —" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, oil to consider the present state of the Church Establi:he u t e " , no g Ireland, with a view to apply any surplus of its rc e n _ ne e required for the spiritual care of its members to ineg.7_l.o, education of all classes of her Majesty's subjects, without distt religious persuasion ; and it is the opinion of this House tha n.. a i ,"' n e„ sure on the subject of tithes can lead to a satisfactory and e ti _ e i r _ l _ 4 on 4 resolutions." These resolutions were voted by a forme ade o' ment that does not embody the principles contained in time eti e s h e Commons, at the instance of the Noble Lord now the .le s present House. Coupling the exist ence of those resolutions sef notification of the s the throe, he thouht lino ' after the lapse of four peech months from and a half,n en titled togput this 'lnesti"